I completely agree that the attack isn't a flanking attack, but the attack doesn't have to be a flanking attack in order for the rogue to apply sneak attack damage. The only qualifier is that the rogue is flanking (which is different language than flanking attack, similar to attack action vs. full attack).
It's not at all similar to "attack action vs. full attack". If you are Flanking, you get a Flanking bonus. If you have a Flanking bonus, you are Flanking. If you do not have a Flanking bonus, you are not Flanking. A=B here. In order to be Flanking you must be making a melee attack. You don't need to threaten - your ally does to potentially provide a Flank.
Put another way:
I completely agree that the attack isn't a flanking attack, but the attack doesn't have to be a flanking attack in order for the rogue to apply sneak attack damage. The only qualifier is that the rogue is flanking (which is different language than flanking attack, similar to attack action vs. full attack).It's not at all similar to "attack action vs. full attack". If you are Flanking, you get a Flanking bonus. If you have a Flanking bonus, you are Flanking. If you do not have a Flanking bonus, you are not Flanking. A=B here. In order to be Flanking you must be making a melee attack. You don't need to threaten - your ally does to potentially provide a Flank.
Put another way:
Threatening allows melee attacks, AoOs, and provides allies flanks.
Melee attacks in a flanking position provide sneak attack.
Ranged attacks, whether they threaten or you otherwise threaten, do not Flank. No bonus to hit, no sneak attack. ** spoiler omitted **
In answer to your off-shoot, an unarmed attack could be non-threatening and flanking.
As to why I think flanking and flanking bonus are different things:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
The exception there refers to flanking and the flanking bonus as separate things. The paragraph above that also gives us a rule for determining when two attackers are flanking.
As to why I think flanking and flanking bonus are different things:
The exception there refers to flanking and the flanking bonus as separate things. The paragraph above that also gives us a rule for determining when two attackers are flanking.When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
That doesn't mean that they are necessarily distinct things (at least insofar as we're concerned in this discussion). It just means that any of the squares can be used to determine flanking and if any square works, you get the bonus associated therewith.
That doesn't mean that they are necessarily distinct things (at least insofar as we're concerned in this discussion). It just means that any of the squares can be used to determine flanking and if any square works, you get the bonus associated therewith.As to why I think flanking and flanking bonus are different things:
The exception there refers to flanking and the flanking bonus as separate things. The paragraph above that also gives us a rule for determining when two attackers are flanking.When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Another example is Flanking Foil, it specifically states that you don't get a flanking bonus *and* you can't deal sneak attack damage.
Flanking Foil (Combat)
Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.
That implies (though doesn't definitely mean) that flanking bonus and flanking are separate things.
That implies (though doesn't definitely mean) that flanking bonus and flanking are separate things.
No... that implies they are the same thing, and can't be separated.
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and , ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
Bolding relevant portions of this FAQ that goes right back to the Flanking wording.
There is a reason the section under Flanking starts with "When making a melee attack..." as was quoted above, and reiterated by Jason Bulmahn in this FAQ. You are only flanking when making a melee attack, barring a feat or ability overriding that base rule.
I think you guys are missing the point. You are not flanking them because of the ranged attacks, you are flanking them because you are threatening them with a melee weapon.
Melee weapon.
Since you threaten them with a melee weapon, you are de facto flanking them. (Given you have an ally across from them)
Since you are flanking them, you get to use Sneak Attack, as the requirement is that you be flanking.
Which you are.
This FAQ doesn't change any of that, all it does is clarify that the +2 bonus from flanking 'specifically refers to melee attacks". Meaning that even if you are flanking, your ranged attacks don't get the +2. Why? Because it says this:
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus"
Thus, even while flanking, you only get the +2 bonus while you make a melee attack.
But...
We don't care about that +2 bonus to hit. All we care about for Sneak Attack is whether or not the rogue is flanking.
The rogue meets all the requirements for flanking? Then they are flanking. Then they may Sneak Attack.
///
Questions to ask if you are only "Flanking" while you are in the middle of making a melee attack... ie rolling a d20.
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
Can you only benefit from this feat while you and you ally attack at the exact same time? If you are only "flanking" while you are rolling a d20 on a melee attack, then you would both have to roll simultaneously to get any benefit from this feat.
You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.
Same question here, really. You must shoot them at the exact moment that an ally makes his melee attack so that he qualifies as "flanking"? A millisecond before or after his swing he is not flanking, and thus the foe isn't "flanked"?
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
Does the rogue "flank" her target? Yes.
Then the rogue's attacks deal extra sneak attack damage.
That implies (though doesn't definitely mean) that flanking bonus and flanking are separate things.No... that implies they are the same thing, and can't be separated.
Uhm... Did we read the same feat?
Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.
It cannot receive a flanking bonus.
It is flanking you....So, it is flanking you, and providing a flank. It just doesn't derive the benefits, personally, for doing so.
They are clearly separate things... as he is flanking, and yet somehow not getting the bonus for doing so.
They are being separated, and they are separable. Ie not the same thing.
Interesting to note... this feat neutralizes more than just the benefits of flanking alone. It stops the target from using sneak attack against you, full stop. Even if you get paralyzed, or otherwise denied dex, even if he swift action vanishes and stabs you.... no sneak attack. Nifty.
|
Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.
This feat doesn't make you immune to the target's Sneak Attacks. It means that although it's flanking you, it's attacks don't get any benefit from flanking you, specifically: the +2 attack bonus and any Sneak Attack damage it may otherwise have dealt as a consequence of flanking.
There are two things:-
* 'being in a flanking position' includes threatening if you are to provide a flank for another
* 'making a flanking attack' means making a melee attack which benefits from 'being in a flanking position'
Unfortunately both are simply called 'flanking', because it should be obvious which sense applies, because you know if you are doing the attacking or providing the flank for another.
If a ranged attack could benefit in any way from flanking, then 'Flanking' wouldn't say 'When making a melee attack...', it would say 'When making an attack'. If the +2 attack bonus applies then so does Sneak Attack for the exact same reasons (all else being equal).
Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.This feat doesn't make you immune to the target's Sneak Attacks. It means that although it's flanking you, it's attacks don't get any benefit from flanking you, specifically: the +2 attack bonus and any Sneak Attack damage it may otherwise have dealt as a consequence of flanking.
There are two things:-
* 'being in a flanking position' includes threatening if you are to provide a flank for another
* 'making a flanking attack' means making a melee attack which benefits from 'being in a flanking position'
Unfortunately both are simply called 'flanking', because it should be obvious which sense applies, because you know if you are doing the attacking or providing the flank for another.
If a ranged attack could benefit in any way from flanking, then 'Flanking' wouldn't say 'When making a melee attack...', it would say 'When making an attack'. If the +2 attack bonus applies then so does Sneak Attack for the exact same reasons (all else being equal).
The feat makes the target unable to apply their sneak attack damage to you. So, no... technically you're not 'immune'... they just simply are forbidden from applying it to you. So... yeah, you are 'effectively immune'.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a 'flanking attack'. If you are in a flanking position(ie you are flanking) and you make a melee attack, that melee attack gets a +2 flanking bonus.
But sneak attack doesn't require you to be making an attack that receives a +2 flanking bonus.
Sneak attack requires you to be flanking. Which you are doing while you threaten an enemy with a melee weapon, and an ally does similarly from the other side.
If you attack with a ranged weapon, you do not get a flanking bonus. If you make a melee attack you do. In both cases, you are flanking. But only melee attacks may benefit from the +2 flanking bonus.
Sneak Attack makes absolutely no mention that it requires any attack rolls to have flanking bonuses to hit for it to function. Not anywhere. It just doesn’t. Simple requirement: You flank your target.
Bonus question.
Snapshot and so on allow you to threaten an area.
Can an ally get flanking bonuses on something you threaten, assuming they're using a melee weapon?
(FWIW, my reading is yes.)
|
|
Bonus question.
Snapshot and so on allow you to threaten an area.
Can an ally get flanking bonuses on something you threaten, assuming they're using a melee weapon?
(FWIW, my reading is yes.)
No. Threatening is only part of the requirement, they also need to be in flanking positions.
For the guy with Snapshot to provide flanking for an ally, he'd need to be adjacent to the target and diametrically opposite from the attacker who is also adjacent to the target.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Although 'flanking' is used more loosely than that when talking about being in the right position for a flanking attack, the actual 'flank' is the melee attack which satisfies those conditions described in that first paragraph. It is a melee attack, and Sneak Attack applies when 'flanking', which strictly is making that attack described in 'flanking' which is a melee attack.
The devs understand this. This is why in the FAQ they say it only applies to melee attacks (see what they did there?), and also made feats which alter the basic parameters, like Snap Shot and Flanking Foil. They all work perfectly when you understand flanking to mean a melee attack, and obviously cause confusion if you fail to understand that.
Just a quick note, you don't have to be adjacent to the enemy to provide an ally with flanking; you just have to be on the opposite side or corner, whichever is relevant.
So you can flank with a reach weapon. Similarly, you can flank with whichever whip feat let's you threaten at range and you can threaten with a bow if you have improved snap shot. You don't get flanking yourself, but your ally does because you threaten.
Finally to address a previous point, any Rogue with IUS can get sneak sttack with a ranged weapon if next to the target? That does not sound like the intended reading of the flanking rules to me. You must also be making a melee attack, not just threatening with one.
That implies (though doesn't definitely mean) that flanking bonus and flanking are separate things.No... that implies they are the same thing, and can't be separated.Uhm... Did we read the same feat?
Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.It cannot receive a flanking bonus.
It is flanking you....So, it is flanking you, and providing a flank. It just doesn't derive the benefits, personally, for doing so.
They are clearly separate things... as he is flanking, and yet somehow not getting the bonus for doing so.
They are being separated, and they are separable. Ie not the same thing.
Interesting to note... this feat neutralizes more than just the benefits of flanking alone. It stops the target from using sneak attack against you, full stop. Even if you get paralyzed, or otherwise denied dex, even if he swift action vanishes and stabs you.... no sneak attack. Nifty.
Thank you for clearing that up Remy Balster. That is how I had read it when I first posted that feat, but the two replies to the contrary had me second guessing myself.
Bonus question.
Snapshot and so on allow you to threaten an area.
Can an ally get flanking bonuses on something you threaten, assuming they're using a melee weapon?
(FWIW, my reading is yes.)
No. Threatening is only part of the requirement, they also need to be in flanking positions.
For the guy with Snapshot to provide flanking for an ally, he'd need to be adjacent to the target and diametrically opposite from the attacker who is also adjacent to the target.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.Although 'flanking' is used more loosely than that when talking about being in the right position for a flanking attack, the actual 'flank' is the melee attack which satisfies those conditions described in that first paragraph. It is a melee attack, and Sneak Attack applies when 'flanking', which strictly is making that attack described in 'flanking' which is a melee attack.
The devs understand this. This is why in the FAQ they say it only applies to melee attacks (see what they did there?), and also made feats which alter the basic parameters, like Snap Shot and Flanking Foil. They all work perfectly when you understand flanking to mean a melee attack, and obviously cause confusion if you fail to understand that.
The rogue's sneak attack deals extra damage when the rogue flanks her target.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
There is only one rule to determine when a character is flanking and it makes no mention of melee attacks.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.Although 'flanking' is used more loosely than that when talking about being in the right position for a flanking attack, the actual 'flank' is the melee attack which satisfies those conditions described in that first paragraph. It is a melee attack, and Sneak Attack applies when 'flanking', which strictly is making that attack described in 'flanking' which is a melee attack.
The devs understand this. This is why in the FAQ they say it only applies to melee attacks (see what they did there?), and also made feats which alter the basic parameters, like Snap Shot and Flanking Foil. They all work perfectly when you understand flanking to mean a melee attack, and obviously cause confusion if you fail to understand that.
Only the [+2 flanking bonus] applies to melee attacks. That is what the FAQ addressed.
Flanking, however, is all about battlefield positioning. You flank an enemy any time you threaten them, and an ally threatens them too from the opposite side.
Flanking makes perfect sense when you understand it to be a position dependent state of being. You flank when you are in position to flank. A creature is flanked when two enemies are in flanking position and threaten him.
We know this is how flanking works. You don't even need to make any attack whatsoever to flank an enemy. Clearly flanking is not the act of making a melee attack, since you can flank without ever attacking at all.
All you must do to flank an enemy is threaten them, while an ally threatens them from the other side. The devs know that, which is why there are a whole host of feats that could only possibly function if flanking is simply a positional rule.
Again, the FAQ you are referring to is specifically addressing the hit bonus you get on only melee attacks while you happen to be flanking.
But we're not discussing the hit bonus. Because while the +2 flanking bonus itself says it applies to only melee attacks... Sneak Attack, as I'm sure you know... has no such requirement.
Sneak Attack can be used with ranged attacks. As much as many people seem to want that not to be the case... they can. And one of the ways to get sneak attack damage is to flank an enemy. While you flank an enemy, any attack you make against that flanked enemy can have your sneak attack damage applied to it.
That is just how it works.
Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.This means that Daggers aren't Ranged Weapons.You're parsing that sentence incorrectly.
Ranged weapons include thrown weapons.
Ranged weapons include projection weapons that are not effective in melee.The clause "that are not effective in melee" modifies only the subject "projectile weapons", not both thrown weapons AND projectile weapons due to the use of the conjunction "or".
(Edit: Yes, I had to diagram sentences in grade school. You got a problem with that ?)
Or you are. :)
"Ranged weapons are projectile weapons that are not effective in melee or thrown weapons."
This would be the correct way to word the sentence to get the meaning that you're finding.
Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.This means that Daggers aren't Ranged Weapons.You're parsing that sentence incorrectly.
Ranged weapons include thrown weapons.
Ranged weapons include projection weapons that are not effective in melee.The clause "that are not effective in melee" modifies only the subject "projectile weapons", not both thrown weapons AND projectile weapons due to the use of the conjunction "or".
(Edit: Yes, I had to diagram sentences in grade school. You got a problem with that ?)
Or you are. :)
"Ranged weapons are projectile weapons that are not effective in melee or thrown weapons."
This would be the correct way to word the sentence to get the meaning that you're finding.
Those are identical statements...
English is messy, people. Get used to it, get over it.
There are ways to make your meaning clear, but in most cases... people choose the lazy writing methods. They form sloppy ideas; they don't phrase their sentences clearly.
1.Ranged weapons are thrown weapons, or they are projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.
2.Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons, neither are effective in melee.
Both of these rewordings have clear meaning, and didn't need much modification. They have different meaning from one another. The rules quote means the first one, but isn't clear enough. If you read it sloppily, it could mean what the second one means.
Why do people write without precision? Because it takes effort, thought, revisions. We are human and make mistakes, and language, especially English, is sloppy.
Now... can we end this topic about what that sentence says? The message and intent is more than clear enough to have figured it out.
Why do people write without precision? Because it takes effort, thought, revisions. We are human and make mistakes, and language, especially English, is sloppy.
Should probably fire all the editors then, eh? ;)
Why do people write without precision? Because it takes effort, thought, revisions. We are human and make mistakes, and language, especially English, is sloppy.Should probably fire all the editors then, eh? ;)
I'd prefer to hire different readers.
Realistically, we have what we have.
Remy Balster and I have related FAQ requests:
FAQ Request #1
FAQ Request #2CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus". The second paragraph defines a test for "flanking". Is "flanking", not the "flanking bonus", solely dependent on position per this paragraph? This affects ranged sneak attacks.
Does this change for ranged weapon(s) that also threaten?
CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus" and the requirements to get it. Can a character with Snap Shot feat and wielding a ranged weapon meet the qualifications of "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"? If he can qualify, is he "flanking" while in position to threaten opposite his ally? (Not get a "bonus", but be "flanking")
He and I have slightly different interests, but the rules are unclear.
Some examples I have are:
X=You
Y=Opponent
Z=Ally
_____
X_Y_Z
_____You and ally wield reach weapons: You are NOT adjacent to the enemy. Do you flank?
_____
_XYZ_
_____You and ally wield daggers. If you make a melee attack you get the bonus due to flanking. Yet if you throw it, without changing position, why should you loose flanking?
I also made another argument here showing that there is clearly the ability to sneak attack at range.
I see the key point about flanking is that there is a test spelled out in the CRB to determine if a bad guy is flanked. That test is strictly based on position, not on weapons held or used.
Please use the links above to FAQ the issue on flanking.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_____
X_Y_Z
_____You and ally wield reach weapons: You are NOT adjacent to the enemy. Do you flank?
Yes. Flanking doesn't require adjacency. It requires an ally on the opposite side who is threatening, which he is in this scenario. And it requires (being argued in this thread) that you be making a melee attack.
Note for those arguing that you are still flanking whether making a melee attack or not. In the flanking rules there is no mention of requirement that you be threatening, only your ally on the opposite side needs to be threatening, and that only matters if you are making a melee attack and want the +2 to bonus. So then the view being taken in this case is that any two allies on opposite sides of an enemy are flanking (regardless of whether they are holding melee weapons, ranged weapons, or anything else). This then means two allies holding bows on opposite sides are flanking and would get sneak attack damage.
I'll break it down
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
This is the only place in the flanking rules talking about threatening, and the only requirement is your opposite ally must be doing the threatening. You get a +2 melee attack bonus in this scenario.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
This doesn't mention threatening for either you or your ally, only that you be on opposite sides. If you want to break these two paragraphs into completely separate thoughts (they're not, the second is just a additional clarification of the first) then you get your ranged flanking scenario.
The gang up feat makes it pretty clear to me that flanking, either for the bonus +2 to hit, or SA damage, or any other benefit of flanking - only applies if you are making a melee attack.
...and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks...
It doesn't say the flanking +2 bonus only applies to melee attacks. It says flanking specifically refers to melee attacks. E.g, whatever flanking actually means, it can only occur when making melee attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you allowed to make AoO with improvised weapons? If so, bows can be used as improvised melee weapons?
So the whole if you threaten thing is meaningless. Threaten with a ranged weapon as an improvised weapon, so rogues can flank and sneak with bows at all times they're adjacent.
Or flanking requires you to actually make a melee attack because that clearly seems to be what the developers intended.
Remy Balster and I have related FAQ requests:
FAQ Request #1FAQ Request #2CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus". The second paragraph defines a test for "flanking". Is "flanking", not the "flanking bonus", solely dependent on position per this paragraph? This affects ranged sneak attacks.
Does this change for ranged weapon(s) that also threaten?
CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus" and the requirements to get it. Can a character with Snap Shot feat and wielding a ranged weapon meet the qualifications of "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"? If he can qualify, is he "flanking" while in position to threaten opposite his ally? (Not get a "bonus", but be "flanking")He and I have slightly different interests, but the rules are unclear.
Some examples I have are:
X=You
Y=Opponent
Z=Ally_____
X_Y_Z
_____You and ally wield reach weapons: You are NOT adjacent to the enemy. Do you flank?
_____
_XYZ_
_____You and ally wield daggers. If you make a melee attack you get the bonus due to flanking. Yet if you throw it, without changing position, why should you loose flanking?
I also made another argument here showing that there is clearly the ability to sneak attack at range.
I see the key point about flanking is that there is a test spelled out in the CRB to determine if a bad guy is flanked. That test is strictly based on position, not on weapons held or used.
Please use the links above to FAQ the issue on flanking.
/cevah
Thanks Cevah, I marked them both for FAQ requests, though yours applies a bit more directly to what I'm getting at.
And to those citing the Gang Up FAQ:
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
The FAQ as I read it clarifies two points. The first being whether or not you count as flanking when you have this feat. When do you count as flanking?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.
The second point the FAQ is clearing up is if I get the flanking bonus with this feat:
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
In other words I'm reading this as (and I could be completely wrong): You count as flanking when you meet the requirements, but this doesn't confer the flanking bonus to your ranged attacks.
And to those citing the Gang Up FAQ:
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)The FAQ as I read it clarifies two points. The first being whether or not you count as flanking when you have this feat. When do you count as flanking?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.The second point the FAQ is clearing up is if I get the flanking bonus with this feat:
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)In other words I'm reading this as (and I could be completely wrong): You count as flanking when you meet the requirements, but this doesn't confer the flanking bonus to your ranged attacks.
The bold text is wrong. Flanking bonus mentions melee. The actual test for flanking in the second paragraph does not mention melee or ranged or even attacking. This causes the Ranged vs. Melee arguments. That is why you should FAQ.
This doesn't mention threatening for either you or your ally, only that you be on opposite sides. If you want to break these two paragraphs into completely separate thoughts (they're not, the second is just a additional clarification of the first) then you get your ranged flanking scenario.When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
The Elements of Style, chapter 2 states:
Ordinarily, however, a subject requires division into topics, each of which should be dealt with in a paragraph. The object of treating each topic in a paragraph by itself is, of course, to aid the reader. The beginning of each paragraph is a signal that a new step in the development of the subject has been reached.
...
As a rule, begin each paragraph either with a sentence that suggests the topic or with a sentence that helps the transition. If a paragraph forms part of a larger composition, its relation to what precedes, or its function as a part of the whole, may need to be expressed. This can sometimes be done by a mere word or phrase (again, therefore, for the same reason) in the first sentence. Sometimes, however, it is expedient to get into the topic slowly, by way of a sentence or two of introduction or transition.
"Flanking" is the subject. "Flanking Bonus" is the topic of the first paragraph. "Flanking test" is the topic of the second paragraph. There is no transition sentence or phrase in the beginning of the second paragraph. You do not have "a additional clarification". Therefore, it is a separate thing.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bold text is wrong. Flanking bonus mentions melee. The actual test for flanking in the second paragraph does not mention melee or ranged or even attacking. This causes the Ranged vs. Melee arguments. That is why you should FAQ.
True, it does. But the wording of the FAQ pretty clearly implies that the PDT believes that the reference to melee when discussing the attack bonus carries through the rest of the entry. If it didn't, then the FAQ wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. If the intent was for Flanking to be applicable to ranged attacks, then not only would the Gang Up FAQ be nonsensical, but it would actually state literally the opposite of what the rules were intended to say.
If ranged attacks were intended to flank, then the Gang Up FAQ is simply incorrect. But it's not like this wouldn't have been an issue discussed when answering the FAQ. The entire point of the question was to see if you could flank with a ranged attack. They considered it and answered it. They said no.
So we have two contradictory interpretations available to us:
1. The Flanking entry makes mention of melee attacks, but that is restricted to a discussion of a bonus on attack rolls.
2. The Flanking entry makes mention of melee attacks, but even though it is mentioned specifically with regards to the bonus on attack rolls, the restriction to melee attacks carries throughout the entry.
And we have a FAQ response directly on point in regards to which interpretation is correct. The PDT said explicitly, Flanking applies to melee attacks. Not just the bonus to attack rolls provided by flanking, but the entire entry on Flanking. You must be making a melee attack for Flanking to be relevant for your character.
So there is not need to FAQ this as the answer has already been provided. Flanking is relevant for melee attacks.
The bold text is wrong. Flanking bonus mentions melee. The actual test for flanking in the second paragraph does not mention melee or ranged or even attacking. This causes the Ranged vs. Melee arguments. That is why you should FAQ.
The FAQ is wrong? Um, ok. Even if the flanking rules originally allowed for ranged flanking, the FAQ CHANGES that rule. But I don't believe the original rules allowed for ranged flanking in the first place. The second paragraph is merely an clarifying explanation of the first paragraph. But the rules of the first paragraph apply, you must be making a melee attack. This is further clarified by the gang up feat FAQ where it is stated plainly that flanking applies to melee attacks.
The bold text is wrong. Flanking bonus mentions melee. The actual test for flanking in the second paragraph does not mention melee or ranged or even attacking. This causes the Ranged vs. Melee arguments. That is why you should FAQ.True, it does. But the wording of the FAQ pretty clearly implies that the PDT believes that the reference to melee when discussing the attack bonus carries through the rest of the entry. If it didn't, then the FAQ wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. If the intent was for Flanking to be applicable to ranged attacks, then not only would the Gang Up FAQ be nonsensical, but it would actually state literally the opposite of what the rules were intended to say.
If ranged attacks were intended to flank, then the Gang Up FAQ is simply incorrect. But it's not like this wouldn't have been an issue discussed when answering the FAQ. The entire point of the question was to see if you could flank with a ranged attack. They considered it and answered it. They said no.
Not quite. They said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat". They did not say "ranged attacks cannot flank". They should have, but did not.
If you strike that clause, and read the sentence as:
"The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, [therefore] ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
It makes sense.
So we have two contradictory interpretations available to us:
1. The Flanking entry makes mention of melee attacks, but that is restricted to a discussion of a bonus on attack rolls.
2. The Flanking entry makes mention of melee attacks, but even though it is mentioned specifically with regards to the bonus on attack rolls, the restriction to melee attacks carries throughout the entry.And we have a FAQ response directly on point in regards to which interpretation is correct. The PDT said explicitly, Flanking applies to melee attacks. Not just the bonus to attack rolls provided by flanking, but the entire entry on Flanking. You must be making a melee attack for Flanking to be relevant for your character.
So there is not need to FAQ this as the answer has already been provided. Flanking is relevant for melee attacks.
Since the FAQ claims something not stated in the original text, and sais nothing about the feat's normal line "Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent." that reiterates flanking as position only, I don't see it as a blanket statement.
The FAQ is wrong? Um, ok. Even if the flanking rules originally allowed for ranged flanking, the FAQ CHANGES that rule. But I don't believe the original rules allowed for ranged flanking in the first place. The second paragraph is merely an clarifying explanation of the first paragraph. But the rules of the first paragraph apply, you must be making a melee attack. This is further clarified by the gang up feat FAQ where it is stated plainly that flanking applies to melee attacks.The bold text is wrong. Flanking bonus mentions melee. The actual test for flanking in the second paragraph does not mention melee or ranged or even attacking. This causes the Ranged vs. Melee arguments. That is why you should FAQ.
RAI, I play no ranged flanking. RAW, the text, by rules of standard english usage, does not require any attack to be flanking, let alone a melee attack. The feat reinforces that with the "Normal" line.
This confusion is why I ask for folks to FAQ the posted links.
/cevah
The feat changes nothing except what the normal line entails. The feat only changes the positioning issue. The blanket statement from the FAQ means that since the FAQ does not mention it changes anything other than the positioning issue, it does not change the ordinary restriction that ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. That was the entire point of the question, which was explicitly answered.
If flanking allowed for ranged attacks to flank, the response to that FAQ would be completely different. There would be absolutely no reason to not allow ranged attacks to benefit from that feat, unless ranged attacks cannot already benefit from ordinary flanking.
Let's not continue to derail this thread?
Yes let's please get back to "are thrown daggers ranged weapons." I say teach the contraversy!
I managed to dig up what I think is the original question which caused that FAQ ruling. In light of it, I'm forced to change my interpretation to thinking that flanking isn't a position and is tied to a melee attack as bizarre as that may be.
The thread for those who are curious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
Read this FAQ again… Notice something interesting? The first line of the answer.
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.
That is the first line of the answer right there. You are indeed considered flanking when two of your allies are threatening a foe.
But, the next question is “What does that mean for me if I shoot at them, do I get the bonus on my attack rolls to hit like I would if I ‘actually’ flanked them in melee?”
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
That is why there is this line following, to clarify about the bonus. The rules topic “Flanking” specifically refers to making melee attacks when telling you about a flanking bonus, so, even if you are flanking, that bonus can only be applied to melee attacks, so ranged attacks are not benefitted.
The NEXT question, is… “What about Sneak Attack? Sneak attack only requires that you ‘flank’ your opponent, and can indeed be used with ranged attacks… can you sneak attack with the benefit of Gang Up?”
…
They didn’t answer this question.
Naturally, some people think that you can, since you are indeed flanking. Some think you cannot, because they believe flanking is something that only happens while you roll a d20 with a melee attack.
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
I noticed that...
To illustrate why some people feel you can sneak attack with a ranged weapon while flanking, consider that flanking is a positional condition. Here is a new made up positional requirement: Jumping. With jumping being pretty much identical to Flanking in derived benefits… Here is what relevant rules text for Jumping would be.
Jumping
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 jumping bonus if you are jumping.
Benefit: You are considered to be Jumping if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue is jumping.
So, with this new example position of “Jumping”, any time you are jumping, you get to A) Use Sneak attack, and B) Get a bonus on ‘melee’ attacks. And, if you get the gang up feat, you are considered Jumping even though you aren’t, when two allies threaten a foe, therefore you get the benefits of Jumping when they do.
Make sense now?
Whether Flanking is indeed a positional condition or if it is a d20 roll, not what I am contesting here. Some of yall seemed to not understand the ‘positional’ argument. This is just to illustrate it.
Dagger is a melee weapon when used as a melee attack.
If you throw a Dagger, then it is a ranged weapon for that attack.If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.
You might still qualify for sneak attack. It wouldn't be for flanking though. If your opponent is denied their Dex bonus you still get the sneak attack.
If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.
Why?
You could very well still have another weapon in your other hand. So, you would still flank the enemy. Which is all Sneak Attack needs, the rogue to flank their enemy.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime .... the rogue flanks her target.
This is pretty clear cut. If you flank your target, your attacks deal sneak attack damage.
All we need to know, is if the rogue s flanking. If the answer is ever "Yes"... then the rogue's attacks deal sneak attack to the target they flank. If flank then Sneak Attack.
Take another look at that Gang Up feat...
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
This says simply, you are considered to be flanking when....
So, if two allies threaten the same enemy, you are flanking. Remember earlier? If flanking then sneak attack.
The +2 flanking bonus is a red herring. Sneak attack doesn't say anything about requiring a flanking bonus on your attack roll. Simply, that you flank your target. Gang Up says you flank them. So... you do... so, sneak attack.
The only real counter argument is "A melee attack is 'flanking'. Flanking isn't a position, it is the very act of making a melee attack. Thus you do not flank unless rolling a d20."
But, then you have to ask yourself... how does this feat even function?
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
The answer would be: It doesn't.
Because you cannot both be flanking simultaneously if you define flanking as "Making a melee attack while an ally threatens it from the opposite side". Only one of you could be flanking it at any one time, so... the effect of this feat could never occur.
We know that to be the requirement to get the +2 flanking bonus to hit. But… is that how you define ‘flanking’? Clearly that isn't the right answer.
So what is the right answer?
Well, we are left with the positional definition of what ‘flanking’ is.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
And a rogue, while in the flanking position, qualifies as flanking their target, and gets to add sneak attack to their attacks. Whether they be melee or ranged is irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.Why?
But, then you have to ask yourself... how does this feat even function?Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.The answer would be: It doesn't.
Or, you know, exactly like the +2 bonus to melee attacks for flanking as exactly spelled out in the first paragraph on flanking. Only now it is +4 instead of +2.
That is, you are making a melee attack and your ally on the opposite side is threatening (which means he has a melee weapon) which is the determining factor whether or not you get a bonus to attack due to flanking.
So regardless of how you might want to read the rules, the outflank feat works just fine just like the normal flanking rules work just fine.
But, then you have to ask yourself... how does this feat even function?Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.The answer would be: It doesn't.
Or, you know, exactly like the +2 bonus to melee attacks for flanking as exactly spelled out in the first paragraph on flanking. Only now it is +4 instead of +2.
That is, you are making a melee attack and your ally on the opposite side is threatening (which means he has a melee weapon) which is the determining factor whether or not you get a bonus to attack due to flanking.
So regardless of how you might want to read the rules, the outflank feat works just fine just like the normal flanking rules work just fine.
How can you both be flanking if flanking means you are mid-melee attack?
Don't make no sense. Either you don't need to be in the middle of making a melee attack to flank, or you do. Which is it?
Your position fails the internal consistency test. Thus, is wrong. Choose a new position.
Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.Why?
So?
Flanking refers to a number of things. How is this relevant?
Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.Why?So?
Flanking refers to a number of things. How is this relevant?
You can't honestly be this obtuse. Ranged attacks are not considered flanking. It's in the CRB and clarified with a FAQ. What more are you looking for?
Let's use an example from earlier...
Jumping
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 jumping bonus if you are jumping.
Benefit: You are considered to be Jumping if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue is jumping.
Let's say this confuses some people. Enough that they frequently ask, "does jumping apply to ranged attacks when only Melee attacks are mentioned?" Then the devs answer, "jumping specifically applies to Melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from feats that modify jumping."
Would you still think ranged attacks qualify as "Jumping?"
Let's use an example from earlier...
Jumping
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 jumping bonus if you are jumping.Benefit: You are considered to be Jumping if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue is jumping.Let's say this confuses some people. Enough that they frequently ask, "does jumping apply to ranged attacks when only Melee attacks are mentioned?" Then the devs answer, "jumping specifically applies to Melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from feats that modify jumping."
Would you still think ranged attacks qualify as "Jumping?"
I would say you can jump whether you are attacking or not.
Just because this fake Jumping rule specifically refers to melee attacks getting a bonus, does not exclude your ability to jump at any/all times.
You don't need to be making an attack to jump. You just happen to get a bonus when you do, but the bonus only applies to melee attacks.
That was the point of the example. Jumping itself (Flanking itself) isn't achieved by making the attack... the attack merely benefits from the fact that you are jumping (flanking).
Sneak Attack, however... would apply any time you jump. (flank) whether you were making a melee attack or ranged, as sneak attack has its own requirement, that you jump(flank).
You can flank while not attacking, yeah? Just like you can jump while not attacking...
If you are flanking, whether or not you are making a melee attack is completely irrelevant. Except that if you do, it gets a +2 bonus. That is exactly what the FAQ answered for us... that ranged attacks do not get the +2 bonus.
But... the FAQ did not say that you can only flank a target while mid-melee attack. That'd be silly.
That is like saying you could only jump while trying to stab a dude. Flanking is positional.
You can't honestly be this obtuse. Ranged attacks are not considered flanking. It's in the CRB and clarified with a FAQ. What more are you looking for?Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.Why?So?
Flanking refers to a number of things. How is this relevant?
No attacks are 'considered flanking'. They are considered melee attacks, or ranged attacks, you got standard action attacks and full attacks... you can do combat maneuvers in place of attacks, etc.
But there is no such thing as a flanking attack. You can attack while you are flanking, if you do that with a melee attack, that melee attack gets a nice +2 bonus. If you attack with a ranged attack while you are flanking you don't get that nice +2 bonus.
But you do get that nice sneak attack in either case. Because the requirement for sneak attack, and the requirement for the +2 bonus are different requirements. Both require flanking, the +2 bonus also requires it be melee.
That is what I get out of the FAQ. That despite being considered flanking, and being potentially anywhere on the battlefield because that feat removes the positional requirement for you to be considered flanking... your ranged attacks don't get an easy +2, because the bonus only applies to melee attacks. You read it in context, and read what it actually says... and you'll see why I can derive this meaning from it. (Because that is what it says)
Just to muddy the waters a little, a standard medieval-style dagger isn't suitable for throwing. Conversely, a dagger designed for throwing isn't really suited for melee.
More modern knives (such as the Fairburn-Sykes or Bowie) can be weighted for both melee and throwing, but medieval ones weren't.
However, if reality or history were applied to most RPG rules we'd have a lot of rewriting to do. As they stand, the Pathfinder rules assume a standard dagger may be thrown, something that happily reflects the Hollywood version of history that the game leans on.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
sneak attack in either case. Because the requirement for sneak attack, and the requirement for the +2 bonus are different requirements. Both require flanking, the +2 bonus also requires it be melee.
You are reading the rules in a very narrow way, ignoring FAQ suggestions, ignoring context, and logic.
I won't say your reading isn't RAW, but I don't think it is the best reading of the RAW.
sneak attack in either case. Because the requirement for sneak attack, and the requirement for the +2 bonus are different requirements. Both require flanking, the +2 bonus also requires it be melee.You are reading the rules in a very narrow way, ignoring FAQ suggestions, ignoring context, and logic.
I won't say your reading isn't RAW, but I don't think it is the best reading of the RAW.
Elaborate please. If I am ignoring something, it isn't intentional.
I know I am not ignoring the FAQ at all. We just get something different from reading it. The context of the question and how it is answered strongly indicates (to me) that the entire FAQ is addressing the standard benefit from flanking, ie the +2 flanking bonus.
The FAQ doesn't even touch on sneak attacks, even though they are related in a sense, they're not specifically addressed.
I very very rarely ignore logic. Of that I'm reasonably certain.